Let's talk about optics after a day at the range

[Mr. Jones]

Went to the range today with the Mrs. and had a nice 4 hour session.  We took all four of our .22s and started a friendly competition regarding accuracy.

She was using a Ranger bolt action with a 4x rimfire scope.  Not to trash her rifle, but everything about it screams $75. christmas season value package .22  Still, it proved itself to be a contender, and I approve.

I of course shouldered my Sig 522 with a walmart Center Point red/green dot.

We had no set number of shots, or rules in general.  Just shoot the middle of whatever target we hung.

I got my ass handed to me at 50yards, which I expected.  I mentioned before I just can't see that far with this red dot, but I still had a 2-3" group.  Mrs Jones on the other hand, had one hole in her target after about 30 rounds, and not because she was missing.  I tried her rifle as well, and it was dead on.

After I whined like a little girl, we pulled back to 25 yards, and I could actually see numbers and words again.  I pulled off a 1" group, eventually removing the entire bull; once again, Mrs Jones got bored and started shooting the center out of the little target.  You know, the one on the corner that has the ID number and info, the one that's like maybe 1" in diameter?  Yeah.  :-[

Once again, We switched and so did the results.

Our final "official contest" was using the big, blue, human silhouette pistol targets. Once again, she got bored after removing the X and shot the copyright symbol off the corner of the target.  This stage culminated in the true test of marksmanship- drawing a smiley face on the target head.  We both scored equally as well, although I think mine looked like Waylon Jennings, which is worth at least ten bonus points.

So here's what I learned, and tell me if I am wrong:

Scopes = accuracy, sometimes at the cost of speed (target acquisition)

Red dots = speed of target acquisition at the cost of accuracy.  Best for CQB?

Iron Sight = right in the middle of this concept

Even from a stable, benchrest position, I could not hit my own holes dead on with the dot, yet I could do so with her scope.

I also attempted to prove this concept by finishing the day with a rapid fire, quick target acquisition test.  I Taped up 2 papers that displayed 4 sighting targets (2" diamonds) each for a total of 8 individual targets.  I then proceeded to shamelessly testing the limits of the rifle and myself, otherwise known as showing off.  ;D

All bell ringing aside, I went through 4 mag changes and one drum, for a total of 150 consecutive rounds.  During the time I went as fast as the rifle and I could (the range was relatively empty by this time with nobody nearby- I wouldn't pull this stunt otherwise).  I also transitioned once from offhand, crouch, prone, crouch, and offhand with each mag change.

I was able to quickly acquisition and execute each diamond in succession for the duration of fire, without a single miss.  Mind you it was only 25yd with a rifle, but it was a fun display nonetheless.

So there it is in a nutshell it seems- the red dot was great for fast target sighting and very accurate for this purpose, but it could not compete with the tack driving accuracy of even a low budget rimfire scope. 

Either way, I am determined more than ever to invest in a 4x or possibly 3x-9x scope for the Sig 522.  The fast action shooting was fun, but it has it's place.

[techmike]

Very interesting, especially with all the different sighting devices. I have never been fond of a sighting device that DEPENDS on a battery. I also (with tri focals) cannot easily use iron sights. I have used 7 different scopes on my Colt/Umarex, and, for me, finally,  have found the ultimate optic. It is designed for a .223 / .308 rifle, but it works great for my little Colt. I will be ordering another for my AR soon. It is a Leatherwood CMR scope. CMR = Close to Medium Range, and is a 1.5 to 4.0 power scope. It has the best reticle for .22 ammunition I have ever used. I am getting less than dime sized groups at 50 yds, also using Federal Bulk ammo. It does have green illumination, and it's not cheap, $250 + shipping, but IMO well worth it! CHECK IT OUT

TM

[imschur]

Yes and no, The obvious answer is to select the sight for the task at hand. In the case of a dot you need to select a dot with the correct size for your application. A 10moa dot will be fine for popping milk jugs at 25 yards but will suck at precision work. A 4moa dot would equal about 1" at 25 yards. Much better for precision. That is why you see combat optics like an EOTech that have two different dot sizes. CQB and precision.

Also some dot cheap scopes have out of round dots

Some precision scopes like Leupold target scopes utilize a dot rather than crosshairs.

Its also easy to use to much power in a scope. Fixed 10x was a military sniper standard for years

Iron sights - good for reasonable to pretty good accuracy. Look at the competition AR's rifles or a Tubb 2000 and they use a modern equivalent of peep sites.

I often recommend the Millet DMS-1 as a good general purpose optic

[Mr. Jones]

I did not know about the different dot sizes available, I can see where it would have helped a lot; at 50yd my current dot was maybe .5" larger than the bull.  I will say though, for a budget optic, the dot is perfectly rounded as far as I can see,  and there is very little glare when the brightness settings are utilized.

Unfortunately, I think my problem is more with the "floating" parallax effect I get with the dot.  I am more used to having at least a crosshair to help level the rifle and form a distance relation calculation.  With the red dot, I don't seem to have that ability (yet).  Seems to me, the idea is to point the dot at your target and ensure the dot is centered in the glass- but with no reference markings, where exactly is center, ya know?  How high do I aim the dot above target to account for drop, and then once again, how do I know the dot is really centered anyway?   

I know I need a lot more practice and experience with them for sure.  From my initial impression, though, it seems like red dots are more geared towards fast reflex shooting and require extensive practice to learn the relation of your specific dot device to your specific weapon's ballistics characteristics.

Or

Since there are no markings to specify 0 or technical representations of center, you have to simply build an intimate relationship with your setup through training. 

This is as opposed to a proper scope where you have definite reference markings and a definite known MOA- ie. once zeroed, you know that 1 click is worth "X" and that one mil dot is worth "X."

  Ideally you could pick up any rifle that was properly set up, and shoot with great precision because the scope is designed to function in such a universally usable manner.

Just as in my experience at the range; were the scope functioned well in long range, pin point accuracy, the red dot excelled in putting bullets on target more quickly, but with slightly less accuracy.

When it's all said and done, the dot did very well, I was still able to make a 2" group at 50yd, and I couldn't even see the bull; I just knew it was somewhere in the center of the red circle.  I'm just whining because I am used to the type of scope my wife was using.  I just need practice, which is more time shooting, so it's all good.

Put it this way- 

My wife can take aim, account for elevation and windage, and shoot the nuts off a fly at 50 yards.

I can lift my rifle from the bench and finish him off before his nuts hit the ground.  ;D

[imschur]

BTW my avatar is an EOTech. The large circle is 65moa the little dots are 1moa.

Now to your point Ill give two examples. On my Colt Sporter HBAR  its of the A2 variety with a carry handle. I use two optics. One is a 10 moa dot and the other a 4x optic designed for those rifles. With the 10moa dot I can blow up melons as fast as I can move the weapon. I used the 4x to shoot the bullsesye on exploding targets.

When I bough that stuff we didnt have the options we do today. With todays optics I prefer the circle and dot like the Eotech, and Millet DMS.

Theres also a reason Aimpoint and EOTech sell magnifiers for the dots.

FWIW I prefer crosshairs on my .22's but with the QD mounts a dot is seconds away

I use the Ncstar here on my GSG-5. The two pictures of the illuminated crosshairs are from my optic.

I think for you to get the most precision you should get targets that are the size of the dot at the range you are shooting.

[Mr. Jones]

The mark 3 from NCstar was actually the sight I am considering buying.  Does it seem to be decent?  I see mixed reviews around the net, but it has what I want for the price.  The reticule of the Mark 3 is also exactly the type I am most comfortable with and always want in my optics.

I had considered QD mounts to switch between devices, my only question was whether the swap effects the accuracy of the optic.  Like, every time I switch, do I need to re- zero, or will they stay accurate due to the mounting characteristics of picatinny/weaver systems?

If they stay accurate enough, that's the answer to my problems.  I was trying to find the best middle ground of speed, view, and accuracy- if i can just switch easily between scope, dot, and reflex- so much the better. 

I also saw one rifle with a 3-9x scope mounted on top of a tri rail and a red dot mounted on the side of it.  I guess they could choose the type of optic to use on the fly.  While it looked a little funky, if something like that would work, I can see where it could be implemented.

[imschur]

I find the QD swapping on the .22's to be satisfactory in regards to repeatability. As for the NCstar I feel it is a ideal scope for these .22's.

I would not use it in a centerfire application.

[EvilBetty]

I often recommend the Millet DMS-1 as a good general purpose optic

That looks and specs very similar to this one I have been considering...

http://www.primaryarms.com/product.sc?productId=205&categoryId=156

[imschur]

The Millett is great because of circle dot reticle. Speed and precision in one optic. It's quite a bit more than the PA though

[EvilBetty]

Oh wow that is a nice reticle.